22. The trustees of the Avonbridge summer drama workshop have decided to offer scholarships to the top 10 percent of local applicants and the top 10 percent of nonlocal applicants as judged on the basis of a qualifying audition. They are doing this to ensure that only the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions are offered scholarships to the program.
Which one of the following points out why the trustees’ plan might not be effective in achieving its goal?
(A) The best actors can also apply for admission to another program and then not enroll in the Avonbridge program.
(B) Audition materials that produce good results for one actor may disadvantage another, resulting in inaccurate assessment.
(C) The top 10 percent of local and nonlocal applicants might not need scholarships to the Avonbridge program.
(D) Some of the applicants who are offered scholarships could have less highly evaluated auditions than some of the applicants who are not offered scholarships.
(E) Dividing applicants into local and nonlocal groups is unfair because it favors nonlocal applicants.
Liked this question...!!
let say u have 100 local and 100 non-local actors.
and each of these 200 guys have been evaluated and been given some marks out of 500 on the basis of evaluation.
Then we can have the following scenario when first 10 students (10%) of local group are scoring 499,498,497......490.
and first 10 students (10%) of local group are scoring 200,199,198.....190.
It means there can be some actors beyond 10% in local group who have scored more than 200(topper of non local group) and less than 490 (scored by 10th guy) in local group.
And these actors will not be awarded scholarships even though they have higher scores than those of first 10% guys in non-local.
I know the explanation is long, but mathematical modeling always helps.Revert in case of doubt.
Fun question! Nverma does a nice job attacking the stimulus and directing your brain to the right answer. I'll just have fun explaining why each wrong answer is wrong.
A. The conclusion of the stimulus deals with offering those with the most highly evaluated auditions, scholarships. What the applicants do after the committee's offer is beyond the scope. Remember, this is a weaken question. This does not attack the conclusion - that the method the committee is employing will ensure the top 10% of each group will receive scholarship offers. What if the committee DID make offers to the top 10% of each? This seems to fail at weakening the argument.
B. The method of assessment is outside the scope of the argument. But let's run with this idea. So, person A comes in. Person A brought with them a lion from the Savannah. The lion fakes eating person A, the whole act blows the judges away, person A exits the stage and is lauded by the judges. Then person B comes up to be evaluated. Person B has a pet mouse. Person B finds it brilliant to use the mouse in his/her routine. The judges aren't thrilled. They went from a lion almost eating someone, to a mouse doing next to nothing. BUT WHO CARES? The conclusion states that the top 10% of each group are OFFERED scholarships. Person B jaded in comparison to Person A. You could probably make the argument that the magnificence of A negatively affected B. But again, who cares? B could have sucked regardless of A - so B shouldn't be offered a scholarship anyway. This is perfectly plausible with the conclusion. Hence, it does NOT weaken.
C. The need of the scholarships is outside of the scope. Curse the LSAT gods for wasting seconds of your life, then move on.
D. nverma explains why this is true. think about relativity. 500 in group a. 100 in group b.
10% of 500 = 50
10% of 100 = 10
However, applications in group A from 400-449 scored 97% on their applications.
In group B - the 10/100 applications scored -- 3, 99%s ; 4 98%s ; but 3, 92%s
Seems to me that those in group a from 400-449 got SCREWED!
E. This is tricky, however outside of the scope. Even though the non locals may be favored, this doesn't necessarily preclude the offering of scholarships to the most highly evaluated candidates.